Comes from the Heritage Foundation discussion of tonight's State of the Union speech by President Obama. Early on in the speech Mr. Obama proposed (yet another) jobs program. They address this idea here.
More Job Training Programs on Top of All the Other Redundant and Ineffective Programs – David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
Tonight, President Obama called for the federal government to engage in new job training and employment initiatives, especially for the hard to employ.
Before Congress signs off on any new initiatives, we must recognize that President Obama wants to add several new programs on top of the 47 job-training programs already operated by the federal government. Further complicating the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded that there is little evidence that these programs are effective.
When federal job training programs have been evaluated using random assignment to job training and control groups, these scientifically rigorous evaluations overwhelmingly find that these programs are ineffective. For example, Job Corps, the federal government’s flagship program for hard-to-employ youth, has been found to be ineffective on several measures:
Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);
Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;
Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was only $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and
Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.
Instead of adding new programs to an already bloated job training system, the President and Congress should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by terminating these programs.
So the President proposed a jobs program, on top of the 47 that already exist, of a type and structure that hasn't been demonstrated effective. It sounds like a good idea superficially, if you're not paying attention, but he knows the data and proposed it anyway. Your tax dollars at work. Well, at least it'll create more government jobs running the program, so it's got that going for it.
His final point highlights the amazing reverse logic which seems to be in play here, once again comparing the Keystone XL project to California’s high speed rail line. In the latter, the White House is continuing to push a project which virtually nobody seemed to have wanted by tossing vast amounts of taxpayer money into a plan which seems almost predestined to fail. In the former, they are fighting tooth and nail to stop a project which would have been paid for by private investment and created jobs in states which desperately need them, costing the taxpayer nothing and resulting in a downstream flow of cash back into government coffers through increased commercial activity and employment.
What is to be gained from this general approach unless you’re actively looking to turn out the lights?
You can cue up Dandy Don Meredith from the early days of Monday Night Football at this point.
By the time this post is published the results in New Hampshire will be all but complete. Mitt Romney wins (38% currently), followed by Ron Paul (23%), Jon Huntsman (17%), Rick Santorum/Newt Gingrich (or perhaps Newt Gingrich/Rick Santorum) (10% each). Rick Perry seems to have fully imploded, with only 1% in the Granite State primary, though his focus has been on South Carolina. Still, I would like to review some of the pros and cons for each of the candidates, and issue a true horserace endorsement.
Let me first stipulate that each of the remaining Republican candidates would be preferable to another four years of the stumbling imperial presidency. From anti-constitutional recess appointments to profligate spending and ever-enlarging seas of red ink, from turning federal agencies like the EPA and IRS into the imperial storm troopers of liberal ends to agenda-driven perversions of justice, through vote-buying with taxpayer funded giveaways, the U.S. really can't afford another four years of Mr. Obama's ideological vision of America. The candidate that is eventually chosen to face Mr. Obama simply must beat Mr. Obama.
Second, I think it is incumbent upon Republicans to come up with a candidate who articulates an inclusive and welcoming vision, but notably without embracing the divisions - race, class, gender, etc. - into which the left wishes to divide America. The left wants social justice, and apparently that is different from rule-of-law justice. The left wants to divide into groups then pander to each group. The candidate needs to expand on an America that gives opportunity to all, fully, but most importantly equally as individuals.
Third, I've been awfully disappointed in the nature of the attacks on Mitt Romney lately. Ronald Reagan and his 11th commandment are rolling over in their graves. For a long time I was quite proud of Newt Gingrich for refusing to attack any other Republican, always focusing his attacks on the President. If you're going to try to elevate your primary support, the argument against Mr. Romney ought to be over the Massachusetts healthcare reform as governor, and not over his work in the private sector. Tonight Rick Perry called it "vulture capitalism." Shameful.
I'd like to say that there is one candidate who embodies everything I'm looking for as November 2012 looms in the not terribly distant future. There isn't. Mr. Perry hasn't shown himself to be solid enough as a speaker, and solid enough as a debater that I would feel confident that he can compete in that biggest contest. I think he entered the race for the wrong reasons - primarily because others thought he should. He needed to do a lot more homework, a lot more preparation before taking this leap.
Mr. Romney's flaw is primarily that Massachusetts healthcare reform. Recall, I'm a doctor whose office used to be in Massachusetts and is now in New Hampshire. But I still operate in Massachusetts, and I see the problems with this law. It is - marginally - better than ObamaCare, but the architect of Romney's is the same left-wing MIT economist that consulted with the administration and pushed ObamaCare regularly in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine. Mitt Romney needed to come up with a better solution to that problem than he has; he is not, as a result, the best spokesman against Mr. Obama's signature legislation.
Mr. Huntsman infuriated me by doing something I listed above as a no-no, parroting the liberal line on global warming/climate change. "Listen to the scientists?" Does he mean the ones shown to be committing academic malpractice in the climategate emails? Does this mean the EPA can kill the capitalist golden goose unilaterally? He's also a little too isolationist internationally. Pulling all the troops home is desireable, but not at the cost of American security. Still, he has a reasonable economic policy outline, perhaps the best one.
That said, his foreign policy views are far more conservative than Mr. Paul's. Ron Paul may be very conservative with domestic fiscal policy, but the pure libertarianism of the rest of his package is a non-starter. And he definitely needs a better explanation of his newsletters. I don't think he's electable in a general election, and I'm not alone in that assessment.
Mr. Gingrich has a number of problems, not least of which is that he was effectively Palin-ized during the 1990's by the liberal media and Democrats (BIRM). He was the "Gin-grinch" that stole Christmas, remember? There are a lot of people that won't vote for him because they remember that false caricature. And that loveseat shot with Nancy Pelosi discussing global warming/climate change? Ugh. To his credit he has renounced that previous stand.
Mr. Santorum is against big government, except when he's for it. And unfortunately he seems to be for it mostly for social causes, which are down the list of my priorities for the next four years. I don't like his debating style, as he begins every answer with a recitation of his credentials. And he has been less good at attacking Mr. Obama than at attacking his Republican friends.
But you've got to go somewhere. To win, I'll take Newt Gingrich, and hope that he's able to overcome the various albatrosses hung around his neck. He's the sharpest debater, and with his time as speaker is very good at making the media uncomfortable when they would rather make him uncomfortable. He'll make Mr. Obama very uncomfortable too. To place, I'll take Mitt Romney. ObamaCare notwithstanding, Mr. Romney is more conservative than you have been led to believe; it's reasonable to argue that much of Mr. Romney's supposedly liberal stances in the past were the actual political posturing, running as he was in Massachusetts and against Ted Kennedy. For show, it's Jon Huntsman. Hey, he played keyboards in a rock band growing up, you gotta like that. But please, modify that stance on climate change to at least recognize that the Climate-gate scandals may be problematic.
You may have heard that the Union-Leader endorsed Mr. Gingrich. Here's a snippet.
We sympathize with the many people we have heard from, both here and across the country, who remain unsure of their choice this close to the primary. It is understandable. Our nation is in peril, yet much of the attention has been focused on fluff, silliness and each candidate's minor miscues...
Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don't back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.
December 21st has acquired an increasing aura of ominous significance for my family and me. In 1988 Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies by now-convicted Libyan terrorists, falling to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland and taking with it the lives of 259 people on board the plane and 11 on the ground. One of those lives on the plane was my brother, returning from a semester overseas in London during his time at Syracuse University.
Annually on this date I have been reprinting my first post from the start of this blog, which I dedicated to my brother. The plane disappeared from the radar screen at 7:03 PM GMT, the moment when all those lives, my brother's included, were tragically ended. The post is timed here at 7:03 PM EST, the time when I arrived home from my residency training to discover the awful truth. In 2005 the pain of this shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere became that much greater, when my father was taken from our family suddenly. The irony - or possibly the design - of the two dying on the same date has not escaped our notice. This post now contains the original first post, from September 2004 and the material I wrote about my father when, after his death, I returned to this blog.
The original first post:
My Reason for Being
There are a lot of ways this weblog could begin. I think the best is with a brief history and explanation. You see, I lost a wonderful younger brother in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I miss him every day; he would be 38 now. I recall thinking back then that the attack constituted an act of war. I couldn't believe that there wasn't the moral clarity and certitude of purpose on the part of our government to prosecute a war against those who had attacked us. That lack of moral clarity persisted through the Desert Storm war, leaving Saddam in power, through the first bombing on the World Trade Center, through the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, etc., etc., etc. With the devastation of the attack on 9-11 finally, at long last, all Americans would see that we may not have thought ourselves at war, but an enemy was at war with us. The same America that fought World Wars I & II would surely unite to fight against an enemy that attacked us on our home soil - but I was wrong.
Even before the first strikes in Afghanistan many, particularly in the media, were questioning the action, opining that we would find ourselves in a quagmire. With the attacks in Iraq the same voices were heard. Now, as Iraq struggles to find a footing for democracy many who in the 1990's thought Saddam needed to be ousted and, if necessary, preemptive action taken have changed their mind, simply because it's not their guy doing the ousting.
President Bush is doing exactly what needs to be done - aggressively prosecuting the GWOT. The critics note that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight against Iraqi and US soldiers - to which I answer "Good. Get more of them together, rather than chasing them to the ends of the earth." To those who think Iraq is not part of the GWOT and that we should have left Saddam in power I ask, do you really think the world would be a better place with Saddam still in power?
This is the history that has influenced me. As Senator Zell Miller said at the beginning of his speech at the Republican National Convention [link]:
Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.
My family, and in fact all Americans, are too important to me. This blog will stray onto lesser topics regularly, my passions and interests. But it will likely always return to this vital effort.
Lastly, I'd like to write briefly about my dad, who passed away eight days ago, on a professional level. He was a remarkable physician, a cancer specialist in a way that really no cancer specialists are anymore. He performed all manner of cancer surgery, soup to nuts, including the plastic reconstruction of any deformity created. He guided the radiation therapy and chemotherapy for his patients. He read their MRIs and CTs himself. He looked at their pathology slides. This was one-stop shopping cancer care, something that you need six or seven different doctors to provide now. You might think that each of those six or seven physicians would be more highly informed in their particular area to optimize their portion of the care. You would be wrong. And you'd have to coordinate six or seven different physician offices to get anything done.
He retired four years ago, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming from his practice. When he left, he spent the next two years staying in contact with his patients, and working with each of them to be sure they had the best follow-up care he could arrange. That's something you don't see either.
I won't be writing here on a personal level. That's something I did for his burial two days ago. We miss you, Dad. We all miss you very much.
From The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner, in the pages of the NY Post. He writes it from a "why should anyone trust the government" angle, but if you just focus on Obama's government healthcare takeover and want to convince yourself that that was a colossal and expensive mistake, well, read on.
For example, a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums increasing by a whopping 9% this year, three times more than the previous year’s increase. The average family policy now costs more than $15,000 per year. Not only has ObamaCare failed to slow premium growth, but at least 2 percentage points of that increase is directly attributable to the health-care law’s provisions.
ObamaCare is also already reducing our health-insurance choices. The new law has already driven a number of insurance companies out of the market, meaning there will be less competition and fewer choices. Moreover, the new law has already cut back on flexible-spending accounts used by some 30 million workers, slashing permissible contributions in half and limiting what account funds can be used to pay for. And just released regulations from HHS may well eliminate most health savings accounts, effecting another 10 million workers and their families. And, of course, once the individual mandate kicks in, in 2014, assuming its not struck down by the Supreme Court, all of us will have to purchase a government-designed insurance plan, even if it is more expensive or contains benefits that we don’t want.
We also know that ObamaCare is going to cost us more in debt and taxes. A new study from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the subsidies in the bill will add $1.36 trillion to the national debt over the first seven years after the bill is fully implemented. And at a time when 47% of Americans already pay no income tax, the bill’s tax credits will remove as many as 8.1 million more Americans from the tax rolls.
And we know that the health-care law will slash payments to physicians and hospitals, meaning it will be more difficult for us to find and see a physician. The government’s own actuaries estimate that these payment cuts could force as many as 15% of hospitals to close.
Let's see. Fewer doctors and hospitals (reduced access) - check. A huge increase in the national debt - check. Reduced freedom of choice in health care insurance options - check. Increasing levels of income redistribution - check. Increased costs, more even than the previous rate of increase, for those reduced options and access - check.
[T]he Kaiser Family Foundation released its October tracking poll and found that only 34% of respondents have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act, down from 41% in September. Notably, the decline was due to losing Democratic supporters, who dropped to 52% support from 65% month to month. Meanwhile, 51% of the public is opposed to the vast new government health-care entitlement, up from a prior 2011 average of 45%.
I might remind Mr. Stern that China's 5 year plan is just that, a "plan." Remember that Mr. Obama also had a "plan" for a boatload of "green jobs." How's that workin' out for you?
Coming today from the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, on the subject of global warming climate change.
Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.
As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.
Speaking of Mr. Gore, there is a legal aphorism that at least this site attributes to him:
When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law or the facts are on your side, hollar.
Given that Al Gore has been doing a lot more "hollaring" than arguing, perhaps the laws (of science) and the facts are not really on his side.
Exit Question: Will Jon Huntsman need to "revise and extend" his own remarks on the topic?
HUNTSMAN: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science.
Politicians govern by concensus. Scientists don't.
David Frum, ostensibly a Republican, asks in New York Magazine "When did the GOP lose touch with reality?" Judging by his composition it's a fair question to turn back on the inquisitor.
He starts out by trying to emphasize his Republican street cred.
I’ve been a Republican all my adult life. I have worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, at Forbes magazine, at the Manhattan and American Enterprise Institutes, as a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and limited government. I voted for John McCain in 2008, and I have strongly criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration.
Believes in free markets? Check. Low Taxes? Check. "Reasonable" regulation. Well, one man's reasonble is another man's unreasonable. Let's just file this one under "less regulation than Mr. Obama wants" and move on. Limited government? Check. Voted for McCain in '08? Given the other choice you'd kind of have to, so check. Criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration? Haven't we all, Mr. Frum.
So it's all good. Until we hit the next paragraph.
America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate. In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed. In the face of evidence of dwindling upward mobility and long-stagnating middle-class wages, my party’s economic ideas sometimes seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners.
Let's take these one at a time, and see how the square with his assertions of his limited government/low tax/free market declarations. First up: "the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate." The GOP did nothing of the kind. What the GOP did do was to insist on substantial budget cuts (limited government) and no tax increases (low tax) in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, wanted a blank check. He was looking for a way to avoid any spending cuts while raising taxes on the upper earners - which analyses have shown is not enough to pay for such spending anyway, and which Mr. Obama himself admitted is the wrong medicine in a sluggish economy.
Next we have this: "In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed." Okay, I think we're in agreement about the economy. Where your reality testing is suspect, Mr. Frum, is in what follows that generally supportable statement. Republican politicians have never demanded "massive budget cuts," only a reduction in the growth of future spending. You've fallen into the baseline budgeting trap. "Massive cuts" to beltway insiders and liberal journalists means decreasing the rate of growth of government spending from 10% to 4%. To those of us in the real world that's a 4% increase in spending that would be a lot more affordable and reasonable than 10%.
I'm also concerned that you think Republicans "shrug off concerns of the unemployed". I suspect you are referring to those politicians resisting the call to provide endlessly flowing unemployment benefits. Already they've been extended to nearly 2 years, and Republicans are cruel to want to stop them there? Studies show that extending unemployment benefits extends unemployment. Or perhaps you're referring to the Republicans' insistance that Democrats who want this live by their "pay-go" standard and cut spending elsewhere to fund it. Or maybe you're living in pure fantasy land, and you believe, as apparently the president does, that extending unemployment benefits "creates jobs." Regardless, this is not "shrugging off concerns of the unemployed," and putting it that way is pure demagoguery of the sort I'd expect from Sen. Harry Reid, among others.
Let's move to your final preposterous assertion in that section, that Republicans simply want "more tax cuts for the very highest earners." Aside from presidential candidates and their proposals for various flat, flatter, and flattest tax reforms (which would help the struggling private economy, many believe), is there anyone in Congress who has proposed cutting only the top marginal rate? By the way, if you're going to suggest that preventing the rates from rising with expiration of the Bush cuts is a cut in marginal rates then you misunderstand the concept. That is preventing an increase, not pushing for a cut. Let's assume you really are for "low taxes," as you state. Then wouldn't blocking a tax increase be desireable?
But there are more puzzling assertions in this essay.
It was not so long ago that Texas governor Bush denounced attempts to cut the earned-income tax credit as “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” By 2011, Republican commentators were noisily complaining that the poorer half of society are “lucky duckies” because the EITC offsets their federal tax obligations—or because the recession had left them with such meager incomes that they had no tax to pay in the first place. In 2000, candidate Bush routinely invoked “churches, synagogues, and mosques.” By 2010, prominent Republicans were denouncing the construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan as an outrageous insult. In 2003, President Bush and a Republican majority in Congress enacted a new prescription-drug program in Medicare. By 2011, all but four Republicans in the House and five in the Senate were voting to withdraw the Medicare guarantee from everybody under age 55.
I'll have to move swiftly though this miasma, in order not to bore the readers, but this is nonsense.
The push to reform Medicare (by making it a grant program to buy insurance rather than a government provided insurance benefit) shows allegiance to private enterprise, to individual freedom of choice, but mostly to the principle of fixing future problems before they are unfixable. Medicare's future unfunded liability is nearly $100 Trillion. That's Trillion, with a T. Those under 55 are ten years away from qualifying for Medicare. Ten years.
The mosque in "lower Manhattan" was to be 2 blocks from Ground Zero of the 9-11 attacks, an understandably sensitive location. Rather than an example of Americans being insensitive to Muslim sensibilities, it is instead an example of Muslims being insensitive to non-Muslim sensibilities.
And Democrats (among others) have now so bastardized and warped the tax code that half of Americans pay no federal income tax. That's not good for America, and in particular it's not good, for those who want a growing and vibrant economy, to stifle those who would provide jobs and economic growth with a steadily heavier burden of taxation. You know what's at the end of the road of steadily more progressive taxation, don't you?
So Mr. Frum, what we have here is a non sequitur. You assert that you want limited governnment, less regulation, low taxes and that you oppose Mr. Obama's policies. Your objections show us, however, that you don't really want those things. You ask in this article whether you're crazy. You're not. You are, however, deluding yourself if you think that Republicans should and will support Democrat, or even Democrat-lite policies of centralized control, bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation and balkanization, all of which stifle economic growth and freedom.
The question isn't "when did the GOP lose touch with reality?" The question, Mr. Frum, is when did you become a Democrat?
*no time now, I hope to be adding some links later for reference.
11/21/11 2020: A ha! I got the links added - and a few grammatical corrections as well.
A little anecdote that may help explain some of the escalation in insurance premiums that people are about to find as year end approaches - for reasons other than the colossally intrusive and costly ObamaCare.
I saw a patient in the office a couple of weeks ago. A gentleman in his 40's, he had twisted his knee two months earlier and since had been bothered by knee swelling, pain along the joint line medially (the inside part of the knee), and a catching sensation which cause his knee to buckle when it occurred. He was unable to squat or kneel. I examined him after taking the history, finding an effusion in the knee (the swelling), sharply positive provocative testing for a meniscus tear (the McMurray and snap tests), and prominent joint line tenderness directly over the meniscus. Plain x-rays showed no degenerative changes. And there's one other thing. This patient had a very similar problem with the other knee four years ago, and I had arthroscoped that knee removing a torn medial meniscus with an excellent outcome.
So, clearly, this man had a symptomatic torn meniscus, with most probably an unstable flap tear (producing that catching/buckling sensation). This is about the most clearcut, obvious presentation you could have. He had had symptoms for two months, and anti-inflammatories had not helped. I, quite appropriately, suggested arthroscopic surgery to resect the torn meniscus. I've examined thousands of knees, and I had seen this many times before. Based on the plethora of findings given above I didn't need an MRI of this knee to confirm the diagnosis. I thought that was what the insurance company wanted, to save money by eliminating unnecessary testing. I was wrong.
The insurance company, a large HMO, refused to approve the surgery until the patient had an MRI to verify what I knew to be true. I didn't need one, I told them, but they insisted. The patient had the MRI, and of course it demonstrated the torn meniscus. We'll be going ahead with the surgery soon.
Trust the doctor? Not on your life. No, instead we need an expensive diagnostic study read by a radiologist who hasn't examined the patient, increasing the cost of care on this one patient. Now picture thousands of orthopaedic surgeons and hundreds of thousands of patients annually having the insurance company second-guessing the experienced surgeon. By the way, my practice has our own MRI, and I still tried not to use it.
I tried to save some health care dollars. I really tried. But the insurance company wouldn't let me.
You think this is bad? Wait until I tell you about PT for rotator cuff tears.
Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard notices MSNBC's Martin Bashir calling on Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to either raise taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans or resign. That's ridiculous enough, but I noticed another problem or two. Martin Bashir is, as he proves in the transcript, both economically and politically ignorant. First economics:
So here’s a message to the House leadership, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Mr. Cantor. 68 percent of Americans and 68 percent of all millionaires believe that it’s time to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that this nation’s economy can start moving again.
"Raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that this nation's economy can start moving again?" And that's going to jump start the economy and spur hiring how? Do I need to cite the long list of economists, Republicans, and yes, Democrats who have chimed in that it's not a good idea to raise taxes in a down economy? I could start with the President himself.
But that's only the warm-up act. Referring to Congress, Mr. Bashir asks:
But honestly, what have they done? What have they done to address the persistently high level of unemployment? What have they done to reduce the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots in America.
Is that the job of Congress? To "reduce the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots in America?" Can anyone tell me where the Constitution authorizes the Legislative branch to intervene in that way? Heck, does the Constitution authorize any branch of government to equalize economic results among the people?
I'm not going to belabor the point. It's simply a shame that he's in a position to influence the debate on TV.
I've been watching with amusement the preposterous, unhelpful and ill-informed protests known as OWS, "Occupy Wall Street" as it were. There are "Occupy" protests in other cities, including our own Boston locally, as well as Toronto, Oakland, Sydney, LA and a host of others. Most are comprised of a relative few individuals, who claim, without justification, to represent the "99%", as in the 99% who aren't among the top 1% of annual income in the nation.
Every day there's another howler coming out of the movement. We'll go randomly through a few of the amusing and occasionally disturbing vignettes.
Both Ace of Spades and James Taranto today wrote about the discovery that if you appear to be giving out free food (or anything else, really, for free), freeloaders will want to partake. Imagine that. OWS is slapped with the realization that resentment and a feeling of being abused can result from someone usurping your property rights and taking your stuff. From Taranto a serious take:
In truth, the Obamavillians are learning why Obama is wrong--why socialism doesn't work. A society that makes a virtue of dependency ultimately encourages freeloading and grifting. The instinct to prevent it is a healthy one. A lot has been written about the similarities and differences between Obamaville and the Tea Party, and here is one: Whereas the latter arose out of the instinct to reward self-reliance and discourage dependency, the former is having it awakened by an encounter with the real world.
Ace's more humorous look at the dustup:
Yeah,what right do the homeless and prisoners have to represent themselves as society's downtrodden. Impostors! They're not oppressed like the college graduates with too much debt from pricey private colleges!...
Amazing... they don't want to share their own stuff with people they don't have any particular common bonds with. And they're resentful of Other people coming in and acting like they have the right to take their stuff...
But note within their little society, they themselves set up a hierarchy "those who belong" and "losers and derelicts we wish to exclude."
Do they not get that that's what they are to us?
Here Ace explains why money exists, a concept seemingly foreign to the occupiers. Short answer: it's a medium of exchange for items of value.
I think you guys (again, the guys in this video) are working for the same reason as Peter Schiff: Money. Which is, in turn, simply a convenient unit of exchange for the most precious commodity in the world: Time.
When you buy a loaf of bread, you are giving up some of your time, in the convenient unit of exchange called money, by which you were paid for your time, for someone else's time.
This is why virtually everybody works.
And have you heard about the drummers? The percussionists threatened to disrupt the occupation, as if identifying disruption were possible in such a ragtag organization.
The drummers’ refusal to be silenced has opened cracks in the leaderless movement. The general assembly that has formed to oversee the protests proposed to limit the drumming to two hours per day, but the drummers fought back.
The Heritage Foundation took a conservative's look at what are, as best as anyone can tell, the demands of the occupiers. Hijinks ensue. Here's a snippet, with Demand #9 and parts of its response, but the whole piece is worth a read.
9: Passage of a comprehensive job and job-training act like the American Jobs Act to employ our citizens in jobs that are available with specialized training and by putting People to work now by repairing America’s crumbling infrastructure. We also recommend the establishment of an online international job exchange to match employers with skilled workers or employers willing to train workers in 21st century skills.
James Sherk, Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics at the Center for Data Analysis:
Public works projects will not reduce unemployment. Government spending does not create new wealth in the economy, it reallocates existing spending. Some workers get jobs on the public works project, at the expense of jobs that do not get created elsewhere in the economy...
Sadly, government job training programs also do not live up to their hype... The government has not learned how to do effective job training. Fortunately, OWS do not have to wait for the government to act. Private sector online job exchanges like Monster.com already match millions of employers with workers every year.
Read the whole list of demands. It's a giant Marxist wish-list. I particularly like the demand for student loan relief. Hey, no one held a gun to your head forcing you to go $150k in debt for your degree in primitive cultures, why should others be forced to pay it off for you? I paid off my student loans, you pay off yours. You know what else? My wealthiest friend started out owning a gas station and working construction jobs. Figure it out.
Finally, perhaps the most unintentinally amusing comment on the OWS protests comes from Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who claims, with curious pride, that
“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,”
"Intellectual foundation." You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
The rebel/revolutionary forces in Libya and the NATO forces still fighting there have gotten their man. Ghadafi is - finally and thankfully - dead. As long-time readers of this blog no doubt know, my brother was one of the 270 who lost their lives when Pan Am 103 was blown from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb that originated with Libyan terrorists. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was the Libyan agent convicted in the bombing, and unfortunately, at more than two years after he was given "three months to live" with prostate cancer and given "compassionate release" he remains alive in Libya. But the man who gave the order, the long-time dictator in Libya, is dead.
Thousands of Libyans poured on to the streets of the capital on Thursday, ecstatic at the news that Muammar Gaddafi had been killed in his birthplace of Sirt. As depicted in several cellphone video images, it was a violent and gruesome death for a man who had ruled this country with an iron fist for 42 years.
Like I wrote, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
After an hour and a half of unconfirmed reports, the news came on at about 3.30 p.m. that Gaddafi was indeed dead. Footage on Al Jazeera Television, showed a bloodied Gaddafi being dragged by his arms on the street toward a vehicle. Images also showed Gaddafi's body, apparently killed in gunfire, his eyes rolled back lifeless. In the lobby of the Radisson Blu Hotel, where many rebel officials, as well as foreign journalists, have been based for weeks, many Libyans doubled over, weeping, overcome with emotion.
Many of the family members of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing are emotional as well.
Hussein. Ghadafi. Castro. Chavez. Jong-Il. Dictators, particularly the murderous ones, can survive a long time. When they are gone they are not mourned by their people (unless, as in North Korea after the death of Kim Il-Sung they are forced to by the next dictator). Rather, their deaths are celebrated. They are only mourned by those who romanticize the ideals of their supposedly idyllic society while refusing to see the terror, fear, oppression, want and hatred that lies just beneath a false veneer of majesty.
Sixteen years ago today Pan Am 103 was blown from the skies over Lockerbie Scotland, taking with it as it fell the lives of 259 passengers and 11 Scots on the ground. One of the passengers was my brother. I will be annually reposting my first post on this date, in memory of my brother. He was 22. I can think of nothing more vital in this world than defeating the terrorists so that other families will not have to go through what my family, and the other families of the Pan AM 103 victims, have gone through.
I caught a bit of this in the OR lounge on Friday morning.
Wow. 150,000 people signed the petition? Wow. And this 22 year-old woman with two part-time jobs started the ball rolling. Unbelievable. Wow. Bank of America must be shaking in their boots at this huge grassroots movement. Wow.
Molly Katchpole launched a petition against Bank of America, which was signed by more than 131,000 customers and counting, saying she would take her business elsewhere unless the company drops its plan to charge $5 for debit card purchases.
Katchpole closed her accounts, cut up her debit and credit card on the sidewalk, and left with $400 cash she says she intends to deposit in a credit union.
WASHINGTON -- Molly Katchpole has had it with Bank of America.
The 22-year-old cleared out her account, and cut up her debit card after the bank decided to charge customers five dollars a month just to use their debit card.
She's so mad that she started a petition to let the bank know the charge goes too far. In just one week, she's collected 150,000 signatures.
For his part, President Barack Obama said consumers were being "mistreated" by the bank.
"You can stop it because if you say to the banks, 'You don't have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated, that you have to treat them fairly and transparently,'" he told ABC News.
"Bank of America customers, vote with your feet," Durbin urged in outraged reaction to the new "service charge."
"Get the heck out of that bank," Durbin exhorted. "They are overcharging their customers even for this new debit card reform. It is hard to believe that a bank would impose [such a fee] on customers who simply are trying to access their own money on deposit at the Bank of America."
Mr. Durbin mentions that Bank of America received bailout funds (conveniently omitting the forced assumption of the debt of the failing Countrywide Mortgage, Senator Dodd's lender of choice, and Merrill Lynch, preventing Merrrill from Lehman's fate). And Molly Katchpole, she's just an innocent 22 year old trying to earn a living at two part-time jobs. As sympathetic figure as you'll find. Just a young kid struggling to make ends meet. Well, maybe not.
Newly graduated gal looking to ruffle some feathers, change minds, and have great conversations with fellow professionals in labor and progressive politics advocacy. [emphasis mine]
Specialties
Persuasive writing and speaking, social media, leadership, research - labor and progressive politics, art and architectural history.
"Labor and progressive politics advocacy?" Whoa. She lists her employment as "Account Manager at Winning Over Washington". So I went and had a look at Winning Over Washington (WOW) to see just what they're up to. Turns out WOW is a communications and public relations firm. The list of clients? SEIU, NEA, AFL-CIO, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, EMILY's List. You know, the usual broad spectrum of interests, from far left to farther left. Wow, indeed.
So Ms. Katchpole is an account manager at a far-left PR firm. A firm which might well be interested in demonizing banks in order to deflect blame from the failed policies of a Democratic administration, perhaps? Here's another website where she lists her job as: online organizing for progressive politics.
Now that took me almost no time at all. Wouldn't it seem that CNN, MSNBC, and the others that ran with this story could take a second to find out that this grassroots movement is the finest quality astroturf that money can buy rather than presenting it absent that important context?
Bank of America employs thousands and thousands of people. The cash they earn is how they pay those individuals. Or are we not all about jobs anymore? Oh, and about that $5 monthly fee. If you find that charge outrageous, then individually close your account and move it to a community bank or credit union. But remember, it's the equivalent of a monthly grande skinny vanilla latte with an extra shot. I'm fairly certain Ms. Katchpole knows that as well.
President Obama’s re-election campaign argues in a memo set to be released this morning that Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — the two frontrunners for the Republican nomination — have “embraced policies that the American people oppose” on Social Security and immigration.
And in the case of health care reform, the polls were roughly 55-35 against just at the time it was passed and signed - "against the will of the American people," as it were. And it continues to be unpopular.
There are, of course, other examples. But logical consistency has never been Mr. Obama's strong suit.
Ed Morrissey shows that even on Social Security and Immigration Mr. Obama is out of the mainstream himself.
I liked Tito Francona as a person, and I think he did a fairly good job during his eight seasons of presiding over a happy clubhouse. He made only a few questionable decisions in terms of offensive game strategy. But, as I stated in my earlier post, I repeatedly had to scratch my head over his management of pitchers. His best he overworked, and his lesser pitchers he too often gave up on. And, from what I'm hearing, the team had conditioning issues. Hey, you're a professional athlete, this shouldn't happen. But, as it turns out, if it does it's something that Francona has to correct. And he didn't.
Ah, water under the bridge. He's out, so now the team is shopping for a manager. And they've got a boatload of decisions to make in player personnel Hopefully the problems don't stem from some of the high priced talent to whom they have committed millions.
Here's one man's take on what the Sox need to do in the off-season, and what they need to do going forward.
Manager: Ryne Sandberg, a Hall of Famer, managed the Phillies AAA team this past season. He'd walk into the clubhouse with the immediate respect of the players, and the ability to look them in the eye and get them to listen. He'd likely be able to handle the Boston Fishbowl as well as Francona did. Is he the best guy for the job? I think a bench coach or pitching coach from a team with strong pitching and fundamentals could be a very good choice, possibly Dave Martinez from Tampa, and there are others. But Sandberg's resume might just get to some of the individuals that Francona couldn't reach. I don't see DeMarlo Hale being the guy as he was in the management this year.
Outfield: You won't have JD Drew to kick around anymore - his $14M contract expires this year. He's 35, and no one in their right mind will offer him another big deal. Jacoby Ellsbury is in his arbitration years, and obviously you keep him. And you are stuck with Carl Crawford, who you can only hope will be much more comfortable, and much better, next year. There's no downside to giving Josh Reddick first shot at right field. He's a good fielder who had stretches where he was very dangerous at the plate. Like a lot of young players he was inconsistent, but experience often fixes that problem. Another young guy, Ryan Kalish, showed a lot in 2010 then spent the year disabled after injuring a shoulder. He might be a contributor, but you can't count on him as a pencil-him-in starter. You need one or two more solid outfielders.
Infield: With Dustin Pedroia and Adrian Gonzalez the right side is set. Kevin Youkilis was supposed to be your third baseman, but played injured much of the year before he couldn't even play injured anymore. He should be back healthy, but he's 32 and does have an injury tendency, particularly since he gets hit by so many pitches. Marco Scutaro played very well the last 2 months, one of the few who did, but is 35. Jose Iglesias in the minors might make the jump up. But if you're going to make something big happen, third and short are the probable locations. Youkilis in particular might bring you some frontline pitching.
DH: Re-sign David Ortiz, two or three years. Yes, he's 35 and fell off in September. So did a lot of Sox.
Catcher: Not sure what to make of Ryan Lavarnway and Jarrod Saltalamacchia. On the one hand, both have pop, and seemed to be able to handle pitching fairly well. On the other hand, this staff struggled, and some of the guys who struggled this year didn't when Jason Varitek was the everyday catcher. And neither hits consistently, particularly Saltalamacchia, who was awful at the plate in the last month. Of the two I like Lavarnway just a hair better. This is another place to look for help, like the Yankees did last year with Russell Martin.
Starting Pitching: You've got Josh Beckett signed at $17M per through 2014. You've got Jon Lester signed for two more years at $7.6M/$11.6M. Clay Bucholz should be very healthy next year and is signed through 2015 fairly cheap. You've got John Lackey, unfortunately, signed through 2014 at just under $16M per. You have the option on Andrew Miller - pick it up. Tim Wakefield will be 46 next year, but he's Phil Niekro and comes cheap. Go ahead and keep him, he's a character guy in the clubhouse. Daisuke Matsuzaka is coming off elbow reconstruction, and was struggling even before getting hurt. Doubtful he can help. If you can get another starter who can help you for reasonable money, pick one up. If you're looking to trade other clubs will start by asking for Bucholz and Lester. Don't do it. Exit question: do you try to re-sign Erik Bedard? He's been pretty good in the past, hasn't he? Not recently, though.
Bullpen: This one is tough. Given how solid Jonathan Papelbon was this year you really have to try to re-sign him. Daniel Bard ranged from shaky to horrid the last month, but I blame that on overuse. However, both of these gentlemen need to learn how to get opposing players out with another pitch in addition to their fastball. They both throw relatively flat fastballs at 96 (JP) and 98(DB). One of the reasons Mariano Rivera, like Bruce Sutter before him, is so successful is because his primary pitch, the cutter, moves and is often not in the strike zone by the time the batter swings. If these two fireballers are going to go with the heat they'd better get command of it. Alfredo Aceves proved he belongs and his enormous flexibility makes the entire bullpen better. He's in arbitration. Franklin Morales has got a pretty good arm, and showed flashes. Felix Doubront could be another lefty starter, but he's also shown he can help in the pen. Scott Atchison is useful and cheap. He takes the ball when you give it to him. And you'll need to make decisions on Dan Wheeler and Matt Albers. Albers is five years younger. I think both were hurt by Francona's use, and might be better with more direction and purpose. On the other hand, maybe not. The whole group, however, could benefit from Ray Miller's advice: Work Fast, Change Speeds, Throw Strikes.
Bench: I liked what I saw from Mike Aviles, who plays with attitude and intensity. Jed Lowrie is a switch hitter who can play third, short and second. That helps, but stop flirting with him as a starter. Conor Jackson can play first or the outfield and is a right handed bat. But you might be able to upgrade on several fronts here. This group could use some veteran help.
Trade Bait: Gosh I wish Lars Anderson had just torn it up at every level - you could have saved the money on Adrian Gonzalez. But he didn't, and there's no room for him at the inn. Michael Bowden hasn't shown much more than a good arm. Too many of his pitches are in the middle of the plate. He needs to learn command of the strike zone. Perhaps somewhere else. And there isn't much else at the major league level.
Drafting & Minors: There's something rotten in Denmark, or rather in Pawtucket, Portland, Salem, Greenville and Lowell. For all of the "great" drafts that Peter Gammons think the Red Sox have, they have managed to come up nearly empty with what's left of them in the minors. Jose Iglesias, with his three tools. Possibly Will Middlebrooks, a third baseman in AA Portland last year (.302, 18 HR). Bryce Brentz is probably a little further away. The first pick this year was a very good college pitcher, Matt Barnes. And why do the pitchers seem to come up unprepared for the majors, and repeatedly have to be sent back down? Tampa keeps running out pitchers they developed, and they show up ready to throw aspirin tablets and "ungodly breaking stuff." Does the pitcher development need an overhaul? How about scouting?
Well, that's about it. Hope I haven't forgotten anyone. I might have one more of these posts looking at the free-agent pool when it's a bit more certain. There's plenty above to like, if you're the incoming manager. Fitness and attitude need some work, and the pitching deck needs to be re-ordered.
'Suddenly, liberal Democrats are making the same argument about the tax code that I've been making for 20 years," laughs former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. "Welcome to the party." Mr. Armey, who along with Steve Forbes has been the torch bearer for the flat tax since the early 1990s, believes that the latest applause line from President Obama that "billionaires should pay the same tax rate as janitors" may be the political gateway to sweeping tax reform.
Mr. Forbes sees an opening here too and says: "The flat tax is the perfect issue for these times. It fixes the economy and doesn't cost a dime."
Mr. Moore outlines the essentials of a flat tax. A single rate. A carve out for the first $30,000-$40,000 of family income. And few if any deductions, limiting how low you can go on what you owe.
That's why the flat tax is the fairest tax of all. The combination of a single tax rate with a family-size allowance—shielding, say, the first $35,000 of income for a family of four—ensures that everyone would pay the same marginal tax rate above that level. A family of four with an income of $70,000 would pay an average tax rate of about 8.5%, whereas the members of the Buffett billionaire club would pay 17%...
"I keep waiting for a Republican candidate to take the plunge," says a half-frustrated Steve Forbes. Then he adds one more flat tax selling point: "You know it ends all this crony capitalism in Washington. From now on, if Obama invites you to the White House, you'd know it's because he really loves you."
Republican candidates are shy to "take the plunge" because they can see the false demagoguery of "tax cuts for the rich" a mile away, and they don't want to walk down that road. But at least if one does they can use Mr. Obama's own words to sell the idea, on the principle that "billionaires should pay the same tax rate as janitors."
Quoted in James Taranto's indispensible "Best Of The Web" today, Barack Obama does seem to be strongly endorsing a flat tax.*
"Yeah, right," I hear you say. "Don't mess with us, Giacomo. This guy's all about class warfare and redistribution and you expect us to believe he really wants a flat tax?"
"Now, the Republicans, when I talked about this earlier in the week, they said, well, this is class warfare. You know what, if asking a billionaire to pay their fair share of taxes, to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what, I'm a warrior for the middle class."
You see? He wants billionaires to pay the "same tax rate" as a plumber or teacher. The very same rate! Not only that, but he defines paying the same rate as a "fair share" of taxes. Look I think this is something we can all get behind. Let me hear you out there! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!
*A flat tax, in case you have forgotten, is an income tax system where all taxpayers at all income levels pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. For example, if the rate is 15% and you make $50,000 annually you would pay $7500 to the IRS. If you made $5 million annually you would pay $750,000.
**If you want to see graphically just how classless and undignified is the Obama White House, check out the transcript of those remarks in Cincinnati a little more completely. Here are two excerpts.
THE PRESIDENT: We've got some folks I just want to make sure are acknowledged here today. First of all, the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, is in the house. Give him a round of applause. (Applause.) We've got the mayor of the great city of Cincinnati -- Mark Mallory is here. (Applause.) We've got the mayor of Covington, Mayor Denny Bowman. (Applause.) Senator Rand Paul is here.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
And this one:
Behind us stands the Brent Spence Bridge. It’s located on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. It sees about 150,000 vehicles every single day. And it’s in such poor condition that it's been labeled "functionally obsolete." Think about that -- functionally obsolete. That doesn’t sound good, does it?
AUDIENCE: Nooo!
THE PRESIDENT: It’s safe to --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Kind of like John Boehner. (Laughter.)
Now this, mind you, is the official White House transcript of the remarks, and they think it's appropriate to document that the audience of Obama sycophants and union goons booed Senator Rand Paul, and that an audience member, not an official speaker at the event, made a joke about Speaker John Boehner being "functionally obsolete." As Russell used to say in Bill Cosby's "Fat Albert" cartoon, "You're from the NCAA. No Class At All."
From, of all places, an Associated Press Fact Check by Stephen Ohlemacher, discussing whether "millionaires and billionaires" really do pay less in taxes than secretaries. They start by quoting Mr. Obama who, to be fair, is only parroting the class warfare nonsense that Democratic politicians have been spouting since the advent of the late Ted Kennedy. (His older brother Jack didn't lead him down this particular path.)
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
Now from the AP:
The data tells a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
The two questions that remain? One, someone explain to me again what "paying your fair share" really means, in dollars and cents. Two, how can Democratic politicians continually spout nonsense like this?
Mr. Obama says "It's hard to argue against that." Well, it would be hard to argue against if it were true.
9/20/11 1610: Oops...link to AP fact check added. My bad.
Right on cue, the Wall Street Journal editorial page features a summary of Mr. Obama's tax-raising plans I referred to in the last post. It's not pretty, and no matter what's in the American Jobs Act this collection of economic anchors isn't likely to let the American economic ship cruise freely.
Mr. Obama said last week that he wants $240 billion in new tax incentives for workers and small business, but the catch is that all of these tax breaks would expire at the end of next year. To pay for all this, White House budget director Jack Lew also proposed $467 billion in new taxes that would begin a mere 16 months from now. The tax list includes limiting deductions for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples), limiting tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and a tax increase on carried interest earned by private equity firms. These tax increases would not be temporary.
What this means is that millions of small-business owners had better enjoy the next 16 months, because come January 2013 they are going to get hit with a giant tax bill...
The article itemizes the taxes
allowing Bush rates to expire, 2013, a programmed tax increase that includes an increase in the capital gains rates
elimination of itemization from "the wealthy," 2013
expiration of the proposed temporary tax credits for 2012, no longer available 2013
two new taxes hidden in ObamaCare, including a 2.9% surcharge on investment income
Yeah, small business owners will be crawling over each other to be first in line to increase their company expenses in personnel costs and health care costs by adding jobs with all that in their future.
All of this assumes that American business owners aren't smart enough to look beyond the next few months. They can surely see the new burdens they'll face in 2013, and they aren't about to load up on new employees or take new large risks if they aren't sure what their costs will be in 16 months. They can also reasonably wonder whether Mr. Obama's tax hike will hurt the overall economy in 2013—another reason to be cautious now.
It's painfully obvious at this point that for the President it's not about the economy. It's not about jobs. And it's not about unleashing the American entrepreneurial spirit. The president doesn't care a whit about the private economy, I'm sad to say. It's about the redistribution, stupid. And America, composed as it is of Americans, should just say no.
You can subtitle this one, "I'll get my tax increase yet, you wascawy Wepubwicans!"
Over at Powerline John Hinderaker publishes the text of a letter from Senator Jeff Sessions to Mr. Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Jacob Lew. If you thought that when President Obama took to the airwaves last Thursday in front of a joint session of Congress to introduce and sell his American Jobs Act that there a) actually was an American Jobs Act and b) that bill was ready for Congress to evaluate it's economic impact, well, think again. The letter reads in part:
When we received a copy of the legislation yesterday, we were expecting the Office of Management and Budget–which enjoys a five hundred person staff–to provide a precise and detailed estimate of the fiscal impact of the president’s proposal. But no such information was provided.
This is not satisfactory.
Perhaps even more troubling, however, is that despite the emphatic promise that we would learn yesterday how the bill would be offset, this information is missing too.
Given the depth of the economic crisis we now face–slow growth, high debt, and chronic unemployment–the lack of fiscal detail that has been provided to Congress is both disappointing and irresponsible...
When the president submitted his budget in February you declared: “our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore.” In reality, the budget would have increased our debt by $13 trillion.
Read that last paragraph again. The budget submitted would increase over 10 years the cumulative national debt by $13 trillion. Recall that we just raised the debt ceiling due to passing $14.5 trillion cumulative debt - that amount accumulated over the course of 235 years. So when the OMB director states that their budget "will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore," it's not because of spending restraint. It's because of plans for much, much, much higher levels of taxation.
Mr. Hinderaker helpfully includes an excerpt from a Washington Examiner editorial making the ploy evident. The Examiner notes that Director Lew outlined some of the increased revenues the President is seeking in this bill - and they're the same ones he wanted as part of deficit reduction earlier in the summer. Wanted, but didn't get. The Examiner editorial asks a very pertinent question.
Pressed to explain how Obama could use the same tax hikes to both meet the debt deal’s deficit reduction targets and pay for his new stimulus plan, Lew admitted that even Obama can’t count the same tax increases for two separate purposes. Instead, Lew said that Obama would be introducing a whole new slate of tax hikes next week, when he plans to give yet another deficit reduction speech.
Obama again insisted Monday that his second stimulus will be “fully paid for.” This is problematic on several levels. If Stimulus II is fully paid for with immediate tax hikes, then it isn’t the kind of deficit spending that Obama’s Keynesian logic demands. If it is only paid for later, at the end of the 10-year horizon, then this amounts to a budget gimmick, because Obama will be long gone from office by then.
That is, if the tax hikes go into effect now for the jobs bill, then the bill is "paid for" with tax increases - tax increases on job producers in the middle of a stagnant economy with no job growth. If the tax increase are delayed, and Keynesian "spend now, settle up later" is the plan, then it amounts to kicking the can down the road, burdening future congresses, future presidents, and future taxpayers with irrationally exhuberant debt. $13 trillion in 10 years indeed.
But look again at the statements of Mr. Lew. "Instead, Lew said that Obama would be introducing a whole new slate of tax hikes next week." I assume these would be in addition to those listed already. Ugh. These will be once again proposed with a prominent class warfare backdrop, and the word "fairness" will figure prominently, I'll bet. There won't, of course, be any definition of "fairness," and there won't be any mention of the fact that such tax increases burden businesses, investors, and job producers at the very point in time that they're needed most.
And if the "wascawy Wepubwicans" fail to raise the taxes that Mr. Obama's filibuster-proof Democratic congress previously refused to raise during a time of economic uncertainty? I can see the demagoguery coming, it's coming 'round the bend. And we won't see the sunshine since I don't know when.
It has been 10 years since the 2001 attack on America, but the memories of that day will stick with all Americans, particularly those of us whose lives have been scarred by terrorism, for the rest of our days. The day haunts me at times unexpectedly. A couple of days ago while watching the 1997 film Men In Black with my kids I noticed the scene where Will Smith delivers an alien child in the backseat of a car in New Jersey. Prominently in the background stood the two majestic towers on another bright, sunny day, the image now a stark reminder of their absence. The image below was captured from the movie trailer.
Yahoo currently has a 9-11 10 year anniversary image site running, and in that is a collection of the 25 most stark images from the day, some of which I hadn't seen before. The Falling Man photo is in there, as is an image of the North Tower on fire from the first impact, with Flight 175 in the background approaching its impact with the South Tower. There's also an image of White House Chief of Staff whispering the news of the attack to President George W. Bush. Yahoo includes the following in the caption:
Ten years later, one of the kids who was there in that class, Chantal Guerrero, told Time magazine that to this day she's grateful that Bush -- obviously profoundly upset about something that Card had told him -- maintained his composure and stayed with the students until the book they were reading, The Pet Goat, was finished. "I think the President was trying to keep us from finding out," Guerrero said, "so we all wouldn't freak out."
I recently discussed this topic with my older daughters, who had seen a news report following up with the children in that class. My daughters agreed that it was probably best for the class that Mr. Bush had kept his calm in that moment, just as those children now think. Michael Moore et. al. may want to rethink the "My Pet Goat" line of attack. Go through the photos slowly and absorb them all.
Speaking of Mr. Bush, here's a brief documentary video of his pitch at Yankee Stadium, including Derek Jeter adding to the already enormous pressure. The President threw a strike.
9/11/2011: A couple of additional links. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey hosts his local 9-11 remembrance, and gives us his stirring open comment. And Professor Jacobson at LegalInsurrection remembers well, quite well.
I only have two questions. First, if this proposed bill is all that, why wasn't it proposed a long, long time ago? Second, what makes this bill so much different from the utterly failed 'Stimulus' I?
As an aside, did you catch the snickers and murmurs when he said that this isn't political grandstanding or class warfare - immediately after accusing Republicans of protecting "the most affluent citizens and corporations." Pfffft. Here's a link to CNN's "Live Blog," which has a transcript, more or less.
By the way, I think he's becoming Don Quixote, tilting at windmills that aren't there. For example:
I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy.
Nobody has ever asked people to choose between jobs and safety. Nobody has proposed that credit card companies can hide their fees (hint: even before reforms were instituted they informed you, in the junk mail you usually threw away unopened.) Nobody wants kids gulping down mercury. And the last two are simply his defenses for ObamaCare and unions, both of which are stifling job growth and harming economic competitiveness.
There are no new ideas in this speech. The game is up. This president is all about redistribution, government control, union power, and environmental shackles on the productive sectors of America. He's not about economic growth, global competitiveness, energy security, individual rights and individual freedoms. I have yet to hear anything that would change that.
From today's Wall Street Journal's 'Notable & Quotable' feature, a snippet from a 1956 speech by Congressman Howard Buffet of Nebraska.
The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways:
1. It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.
2. The part of his production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken away from the people. . . .
George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: "When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic power with police power that destroys the right of the individual to liberty."
Or, to quote another American, our third president, in a much earlier time, “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.” Thomas Jefferson also said this: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Anyway, there's more at the link, including a quote that could be applied directly to the government health care grab in ObamaCare:
If the government is to guarantee you what the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility—even self-arrogated responsibility—must go authority
This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving...
The U.S. Postal Service posted a net loss of $3.1 billion in its third quarter and warned again it would default on payments to the federal government if Congress did not step in.
Total mail volume for the quarter that ended June 30 fell to 39.8 billion pieces, a 2.6 percent drop from the same period a year earlier, as consumers turn to email and pay bills online.
The mail carrier, which does not get taxpayer funds, has struggled to overhaul its business as mail volumes fall. It has said personnel costs weigh heavily and is facing a massive retiree health benefit prepayment next month.
"We are experiencing a severe cash crisis and are unable to continue to maintain the aggressive prepayment schedule," Joseph Corbett, the agency's chief financial officer, said in a statement.
"Without changes in the law, the Postal Service will be unable to make the $5.5 billion mandated prepayment due in September."
Does the USPS want to survive? Well, then drop your personnel costs dramatically. Deliver mail only twice or thrice weekly, and cut your bloated carrier staff. And reform your pensions. Act like a private company - you know, one that doesn't get taxpayer funds - by going to defined contribution pensions and reforming the retiree health plan.
Technology changes everything. The Pony Express isn't still in business.
A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted “present” (instead of “yea” or “nay”) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.
I read that and, as did Charlie Brown when Lucy Van Pelt explored the psychological reasons for his malaise in "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and asked him if he had pantophobia - fear of everything - I wanted to jump to my feet and scream "THAT'S IT!!!" Serves you right, Dr. Westen, for being "bewitched by his eloquence."
And, I might add, those of us who were not "bewitched by his eloquence," or trying to feel better about America and ourselves by voting for a black man for president, but were instead simply trying to find the best available candidate for the job recognized and acknowledged all of these items ahead of the election. A curriculum vitae this thin would in political circles disqualify a Republican candidate from consideration, so why not Mr. Obama?
8/8/11 1750: Wherein the splendid James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's great "Best of the Web" daily column writes in a similar (identical?) vein. Perhaps more eloquently, but still ...
He also sizes up the additional maneuvering in Dr. Westen's essay, and it's well worth your time to have a look.
Westen and Klein, and other like-minded progressives, have revealed that they dream of a strongman uniting the "masses." If that requires vilifying selected groups of Americans, they don't mind and may even view it as a plus.
Even if he wanted to, Barack Obama could not be a strongman, in part because he is a weak man and in part because America's constitution is a strong charter of liberty. But if Obama had the means and inclination to impose a dictatorship, is there any doubt that Drew Westen and Joe Klein, at least at the outset, would goose-step with gusto?
A "strongman uniting the masses." That thought does bring forth some thoroughly undesireable images.
He didn't just say that, did he? The President doesn't like the choices the voters made emphatically in 2010? Maybe if he rounded up and imprisoned the dissidents.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air runs the "Obamateurism of the Day" feature (here's a link to a list of them), wherein our president's least presidential moves are chronicled. It's definitely worth a look each day. I have a feeling this one will actually make it as tomorrow's "OOTD".
Laura Ingraham juxtaposing Obama and Carter. Brilliant. Shhhh ... don't tell anyone, but do you think there might be a theme, some sort of underlying principle, that guides misguided Democratic policy choices?
Chris Matthews thinks the screeching kids in the back seat are now trying to drive the car. Don't tell him, but the problem is that the screeching kids have been driving since January 2007*, and the adults, realizing we're lost, are trying to claw their way back into the front seat and behind the wheel.
The heart of Mr. Obama's press conference today, via The Hill:
President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.
"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."
Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.
Let's leave aside the assertion that "the American people are sold" on increasing taxes. (They're not.) Why, particularly, do spending cuts need to be "balanced" by tax increases? There are three reasons I can imagine, and none of them have anything to do with what's "best" for the country.
because in the interest of "fairness" more money needs to be collected and distributed from those who have
because in the interest of "compromise" Mr. Obama expects Republicans to roll over and give him the tax increase his filibuster-proof Democratic Congress wouldn't give him, even with low GDP growth and high-unemployment
because by demagoguing Republicans into agreeing to raise taxes he hopes to turn them all into George H. W. "read my lips" Bush before the next election.
I think the first reason is the driving force, but the third, with the President already in full re-election lockdown, is definitely a major consideration. Funny, none of those reasons involve actually helping economy grow and create jobs. Or perhaps in his next press conference Mr. Obama could explain how raising taxes will do that.
The so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats, the "centrist" Democrats who are just so much more conservative than those fire-breathing liberals who lead the Democratic party (and for whom these Blue Dogs voted, I might add) are upset at Republicans over the debt-ceiling negotiations.
But this time around, moderate Democrats are starting to sour on the process, arguing that the intractability among Republican rank and file is threatening their support.
“I’ve been for cutting the deficit for a long time, that’s what the Blue Dog mantra is about — but not in a radical way and not in the way that harms the economy. These folks are hijacking the issue as a way that is very unfortunate, and they’re voting ideology versus what I think is in the best interest of the country,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a member of the moderate Blue Dog Caucus.
You know, Representative Cardoz, (D-Calif.), maybe they're just voting for what they think is in the best interest of the country. You know, voting their conscience, as opposed to yours. But if you think it's better to sharply raise taxes on the job creators in America's private economy, in the middle of history's most-sluggish recovery and a stagnant job market, then by all means join with Mr. Obama and denigrate the intentions of the Republicans, and demagogue the issue in class warfare terms.
From Gabriel Malor, of Ace Of Spades fame. Discussing the incoherent collection of random policies by which the Obama administration deals with captured terrorists, he writes: (orig. story at WaPo)
Lemme see if I've got this right. The President acknowledges that we have to interrogate these guys. He's admitted that, finally. But he cannot send terrorists to U.S. detention sites on our allies' territory because he railed against that when Bush 43 did it. He cannot send terrorists to the major detention facility created for that purpose on territory we control because he similarly railed against that at a time when he had no real responsibilities and despite the fact that he has now conceded that it will remain in operation indefinitely. He cannot send them straight to the United States because then we couldn't interrogate them and he has surrendered to the fact that we need to interrogate them.
Solution: avoid this entire mess of his own creation by secretly detaining terrorists on naval vessels and as far as international (or domestic law) goes just fugedaboudit. Too. Much. Trouble. Presidentin'. Is. Hard.
That'll leave a mark. Painted into a corner much? Oh, and if you think the CIA is doing this interrogating, think again. From Gabe again:
Oh, here's another Obama snowball-into-avalanche mess:
Warsame was turned over to the FBI after extensive "humane" interrogation aboard ship by a unit known as a High-Value Interrogation Group, made up of FBI, CIA and Defense Department personnel, the officials said. But a U.S. official said CIA officers did not directly question Warsame. After the controversy surrounding George W. Bush-era interrogations of detainees, the CIA has consistently said it has kept its agents away from direct questioning.
I originally went through there bolding the important bits, but when I got to the end, practically the whole thing was bolded. Read it again, Sam. The CIA literally won't touch terrorist interrogations with a ten foot pole. Not even "humane" interrogations. And that's a direct result of Obama's and AG Holder's witchhunt.
The Daily Caller, in the person of reporter Amanda Carey, gets it wrong in a story trumpeting the "offer" from President Obama to "put Medicare and Social Security cuts" on the negotiating table. That's the headline, at least. In the story she phrases it somewhat more eloquently, as "major changes to Social Security and Medicare."
The Obama administration, in seeking $4 trillion in spending cuts in a debt limit deal, has put major changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table if Republicans agree to increased tax revenues.
The offer caters to both sides in the debt limit negotiations and according to the Washington Post, President Obama will urge congressional leaders on Thursday to seize the opportunity to act. The compromise, however, still puts both Republicans and Democrats in tough spots.
Democrats have vowed to protect Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans still argue that tax increases are not realistic legislative proposals. If leadership from both parties agree to the Obama’s compromise, the next move will be to sell the plan to their respective bases and to members of Congress.
Ms. Carey, judging by her thumbnail photo that accompanies the story, is way too young and recently graduated from J school to understand why her formulation in the third paragraph is so inaccurate, so I'll outline it for her here.
Republicans primary argument is not that "tax increases are not realistic legislative proposals," though indeed they are not. Their primary argument is that tax increases will take money from the private economy that is necessary for future economic growth. If your primary goal is job creation and a GDP growth then you don't siphon capital from the job creators. (If your goal is redistribution then fine, have at it.)
Finally, Mr. Obama is desperately seeking to be seen as the adult offering reasonable compromise between the sniping children in party leadership. He's not. If he were, we wouldn't have seen the harmful 'stimulus' outsourced to the Democratic leadership of Pelosi/Reid, we wouldn't have seen the moronic cash for clunkers program, we wouldn't have seen ObamaCare pushed through on a one party vote while a recovery was attempting to take hold, we wouldn't have seen no Democratic budget proposal for two years (other than Mr. Obama's - which was voted down 97-0 earlier this year), we wouldn't have seen the drilling moratorium and pushes for carbon taxes that would both increase the price of fossil fuels and siphon more money from the economy, and we wouldn't have seen repeated demands for "tax increases on the wealthy" and the ridiculous sniping over corporate jets. He still is looking for "increased tax revenue" despite previously admitting that increasing taxes in the midst of economic malaise is not helpful.
If Democrats wanted to solve the problem their "compromise" should consist of a) admission that our current tax structure is quite progressive already and that any tax rate increase for the foreseeable future is harmful, b) admission that both Medicare and Social Security need reform, not "cuts," and not demagoguery, and c) admission that ObamaCare was a bad idea that will only make matters worse both economically and in terms of personal freedom and choice. The country needs to make the safety net programs sustainable and promote economic growth, and not use them for political gain and redistribution.
By the way, Ms. Carey can be excused a bit, for she is young. NYT Columnist David Brooks, on the other hand, has no excuse. In this tantrum of a column he both misrepresents the position of the Republican opposition and then denigrates them, for good measure.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them...
"The legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities?" "A thousand impartial experts?" Surely, he must be joking. Mr. Brooks is referring to his tribe as "intellectual authorities," and being in agreement with him they are therefore "impartial." But Mr. Brooks, I think, is well aware that there are, of course, other tribes, other "intellectual authorities" equally "impartial" in the eyes of others.
7/7/11 1205: Ed Morrissey: it's not a revenue problem, its a spending and recession problem. So fix the spending and the recession - the revenue will follow.
Over at Legal Insurrection Michael Alan recognizes the signs. He embedded a video from Mary Katherine Ham that contains more evidence that "spreading the wealth around" is the real goal. I'll follow his lead and embed the video also.
Gee, and to think, you all could have found that here 5 days ago. And I don't think he's thinking just about removing corporate jet subsidies.
He has, in his unscripted moments, a thoroughly redistributionist soul.
Fast forward. With the 'stimulus' that cost the country over $800 billion dollars in deficit spending (which did not, incidentally, keep the unemployment level under 8%), combined with keeping that additional spending on into the future, combined with the trillion-dollar ten-year cost of ObamaCare, combined with annual deficits of $1.4 to 1.7 trillion and the failure to address the not-so-long term problems with funding Social Security and Medicare, combined with the demagoguing of "the rich," "oil companies," "business" (and, frankly, anyone who isn't a union member or a registered Democrat), let's see if you can guess what Mr. Obama wants out of the talks to raise the debt ceiling.
The key disagreement is over taxes. Democrats, including Obama, say a major deficit-reduction agreement must include tax increases or the elimination of tax breaks for big companies and wealthy individuals. Republicans are demanding huge cuts in government spending and insisting there be no tax increases.
Let's remember that, first, it is possible to see steadily decreasing deficits even without tax increases and "huge cuts" in spending, to use the phraseology of the AP report. Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell, and he'll inform you in this video about the "current services baseline" that puts the lie to those "huge cuts."
Second, remember Mr. Obama's tendency to look at the economy as a political tool for rewarding his supporters and punishing those who are not, a tendency which largely explains why he has failed to help it recover. He's been too busy rewarding the UAW and unionized Boeing employees, among others, and punishing non-unionized workers in red South Carolina, Boeing itself, and GM and Chrysler bond-holders. Who could possibly object to job-killing, economy-stifling tax increases if they're hitting the "right" people?
Who indeed. Mr. Obama doesn't just want the UAW to have a large stake in GM. He'd like his administration to have its own large stake in the entire U.S. economy, so that the wealth can best be "spread around." There is, after all, a point where "you've made enough money," and apparently he and the Democrats in Washington know just where that is.
The debt ceiling will need to go up, but taxes shouldn't, and spending cuts should be the focus of everyone in the room. If Mr. Obama wants tax increases, make him propose them for 2012. He won't do that, of course. There's an election later that year.
6/26/11 1515: Via The Corner, Sen. John Kyl lays it out.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) says a deal to raise the debt ceiling will come down to whether or not President Obama abandons his “ideological bent” to raise taxes on the American people.
“The president has to make a decision,” Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. “Which is more important to him, solving this problem reducing spending somewhat or making sure that we raise taxes on the American economy? If that’s his ideological bent here and under all circumstances that’s what he is going to insist on, we’ve got a big problem.”
"Ideological bent," "redistributionist soul," whatever. The point here is that it's apparent that Mr. Obama has a belief that higher tax rates on the producers and job-creators in and of itself is good, regardless of the economic disincentives and contraction that might occur. I shouldn't have to point this out, but there is a name for someone with such an ideological bent.
At the end of the day, President Obama must decide how the country will proceed. “He’s got to make that choice,” Kyl said. “And the best choice, I think, is not doing anything to harm the economy.”
A case of mistaken identity has entangled a small family-owned Des Moines company in union protests and led to a death threat.
Angry callers are mistaking Koch Brothers, a Des Moines office supply firm, with the brothers who own Koch Industries, the global energy conglomerate. Billionaires Charles and David Koch have fought Wisconsin unions, financed the tea party and opposed climate change rules.
Mr. Taranto notes, sardonically, that death threats seems to be "a way of life" for "union thugs" and blames Paul Krugman, who earlier in the column was noted to have written a couple of columns arguing against civility in political discourse.
I think a couple of other questions are worth asking. First, reading between the lines, is the Des Moines Register inferring by omission that had the threats been directed against the global conglomerate Kochs rather than the local office supply Kochs they would have been understandable, perhaps even acceptable? Second, are violent leftists so stupid that they can't figure out in advance who they want dead?
From the Wall Street Journal editorial page, discussing the 'hard choices' Mr. Obama made in reducing spending with his proposed budget.
The White House actually touts as tight-fisted a budget proposing a record $1.645 trillion deficit for fiscal 2011, due largely to a new surge in spending to 25.3% of GDP. That's more spending than in any year since 1945. Federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will rise to 75.1% [of GDP] in 2012, which is the highest since 1951 and more than double what it was as recently as 2007. [chart at the link]
This $3.73 trillion budget does a Cee Lo Green ("Forget You," as cleaned up for the Grammys) to the voter mandate in November to control spending. It leaves every hard decision to the new House Republican majority. And it ignores almost entirely the recommendations of Mr. Obama's own deficit commission. No wonder the commission's Democratic co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, said Monday that this budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." And he's an ally.
How unserious is this budget? Although the White House trumpets $2.18 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, those savings are so far off in the magical "out years" that you can barely see them from here. More than 95% of the savings would happen after Mr. Obama's first term in the White House is over, and almost two-thirds of the promised deficit reduction would arrive after 2016. Pretending to cut deficits by pushing all real cuts into the future is Budget Flimflam 101.
Mr. Obama's budget put him in the position of back-bencher, not national leader. By letting the House Republican majority make all of the hard choices on programs and entitlements he and his minions in the media will be able to demagogue the 'cuts' and cruelty of the needed spending restraint. Well, back to what worked. He cut his teeth in politics by railing against the evil George Bush administration; why not rail some more against the evil Republican budget plan?
And don't give me these meaningless ten year totals, designed simply to make the sum total sound impressive. The out-years always change. There's no obligation on future congresses and future presidents to even use those projections as guidelines. And this budget has little if any spending reductions. The tax increases ("expiration of the Bush tax cuts" in liberal-speak) Mr. Obama is counting on for 2013 will probably be just as bad an idea then and won't pass a Republican House.
He's abdicating responsibility on spending restraint because, frankly, spending restraint is hard. Better just to vote "present" and let grown-ups make the hard choices. And then denounce them.
Politico has, today, the type of story that we're going to see repeatedly until Republicans actually, finally, choose a candidate to run against the incumbent president in 2012. How much more meaningless can polling be than polling a presidential contest between the current White House resident and someone who hasn't even declared candidacy and isn't supported - yet - by even all Republicans, let alone independents. This is comparing apples to ... imaginary oranges.
If the presidential election were to happen today, Barack Obama would win eight swing states and one electoral vote-giving congressional district that he won in 2008 but George W. Bush won in 2004, a new poll has found.
Obama would win all his match-ups against four likely presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney — according to surveys conducted by Public Policy Polling over the last three months.
In Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Nebraska’s second congressional district, Obama would win by an average of seven points.
Romney does the best in match-ups against Obama, trailing by an average of six points. Huckabee trails by eight points, Gingrich by 12 and Palin by 16 points.
I have several thoughts. First, only seven points on average? That should shock the president's team. This is a man who's actually seen his flagging support stabilize and improve slightly, now that, overwhelmingly, the country put a checkrein on his most liberal impulses. And it's seven points against people who haven't declared? Wow.
Second, Ms. Palin only trails by 16 points? That's remarkable, considering the universal media venom spewed upon her every utterance and written word. Sure, she's some things that could be questioned. Who hasn't? But it's not as if she suggested that drugs should be illegal to prevent an economic benefit. Huh? Ms. Palin has also stirred the pot in ways that no other conservative could. "Death panels"* indeed.
Finally, the only reason these polls - and PPP is a Democratic polling firm - are being done is to provide support for the media-preferred narrative of re-election inevitability. There's a certain percentage of the population - 2, 3, 4% - who simply want to know they're voting for the guy/gal who will win. Fewer Democrats and Obama-leaning independents will bother to traipse to the polls if they think their effort is futile. Some polling takes the voters temperature, and some is designed to cool them off or heat them up. This is the latter, and Politico.com is happy to report the narrative.
Call me when one of these candidates officially declares, and I'll open my eyes. Call me again when the campaigning starts and I'll get up from my chair. Call me once more when a Republican frontrunner emerges, and maybe I'll start checking out a poll or two. Until then this falls firmly in the category "propaganda."
*"Death panels" is in quotes because that's how she wrote it in the original
Green Bay fought through a ton of injuries this season, and then had three more key injuries in the first half of Super Bowl XLV (you've got to love the Roman numerals). They lost two defensive backs, including one of the best defensive players in the league in Charles Woodson, and lost number one wideout Donald Driver. They had a rough third quarter, and had difficulty running the ball. They were facing an experienced team, one that had seemed to find just what it needed when it needed it, and whose defense was often impenetrable when it needed to be impenetrable.
Rodgers, the game's MVP, thrilled his legion of Cheesehead fans with a spectacular six-game string that should finally erase the bitterness of the Brett Favre separation in Green Bay. He's not equal with Favre in Super Bowl wins, yet he extended the Packers' record of NFL titles to 13, nine before the Super Bowl era.
The Packers QB threw for three touchdowns, two to Greg Jennings, and the Packers (14-6) overcame even more injuries, building a 21-3 lead, then hanging on to become the second No. 6 seed to win the championship. Coincidentally, the 2005 Steelers were the other.
Rodgers threw for 304 yards, including a 29-yard touchdown to Jordy Nelson, who had nine catches for 140 yards to make up for three big drops. Rodgers found Jennings, normally his favorite target, for 21- and 8-yard scores.
Rodgers, the game's MVP, was outstanding, but the best thing the Packers did was avoid mistakes (other than taking some bad angles and getting sucked inside on some Pittsburgh running plays, and dropping perfectly thrown Rodgers passes). They had no turnovers; Pittsburgh had three. Jordy Nelson dropped some of those pinpoint passes, but also caught a bunch including a touchdown pass. Greg Jennings wasn't really all that open on those seam passes up the middle, but Rodgers found him anyway.
The second best thing the Packers did was to - somehow - neutralize Troy Polamalu and James Harrison, the latter having one tackle, for a sack, in the entire game. Rodgers saw some pressure, but he had time to throw on most dropbacks, and found the open guy with regularity. No wonder they didn't run much.
The Packers will be back again next year, presenting a strong defense of their championship with their injuries having the summer to heal. And the Patriots will be my favorite to represent the AFC. Sweet.
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico — Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region's coldest weather in six decades...
Temperatures have dropped to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 Celsius) in the area, the coldest weather in 60 years.
Is the coldest weather in 60 years in Mexico a sign of the earth warming? I forget.
Here's an interesting play on the claims of the warming alarmists, via Ace of Spades.
The global warmistas have a similar tactic. When asked to explain why their predictions keep failing, they will say "Well, the environment is a very complicated thing and of course we don't have a perfect model of it yet."
But when their core claims are challenged, they claim the exact opposite: They have a perfect model of everything, with all variables perfectly weighed in the equation (that's why they know, to a moral certainty, that the sun has no more than a trivial effect on changing climate), so shut up, we got this, all of this.
Gosh, I hope not. As you may know if you're one of my 12 or so regular readers, I'm a Green Bay Packers/NE Patriots fan (with a side of Philadelphia Eagles - although the Michael Vick fling is doing nothing for that). EA Sports Madden 11 has predicted that this years game will go to the Steelers by four in a fourth quarter comeback. Ugh.
Forget Punxsutawney Phil -- Madden 11, EA's pigskin prognosticator, has emerged from its burrow just in time to make its annual wintery pick.
And it's going with Pittsburgh.
According to the simulation, the Steelers storm back from an early fourth quarter deficit to narrowly beat the Green Bay Packers, 24-20, nabbing their record seventh Vince Lombardi Trophy. With five catches for 111 yards -- including the game-winning TD -- Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace wins the MVP.
Well, let's just say that I'm rooting for the game to make it's second mistaken prediction in eight tries.
The Heartland Institute's Peter Ferrara tells you, over at The American Spectator. First, a brief explanation of why the whole law collapses without mandated insurance purchase.
Without the individual mandate, the rest of Obamacare is transparently unworkable, as President Obama and the Democrats themselves said during the jihad for its enactment. That is because the bill also includes what is known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." Under those provisions, an insurance company must insure whoever applies, and charge them no more than anyone else, no matter how sick or costly they are when they first apply...
The skyrocketing premiums cause younger and healthier individuals to drop their coverage. That forces insurers to raise premiums even more because the remaining pool is even sicker and costlier on average. The younger and healthier than flee even more, knowing they can automatically get coverage later if they become sick! ...
...without the individual mandate, the whole system inevitably collapses as described above.
He proposes a couple of free market solutions: block grant Medicaid to states to cover their poorest with income-based vouchers for private insurance, and create state high-risk pools to assist with private coverage when insurance is prohibitive. I would add the provision of insurance crossing state lines and (perhaps) the portability of insurance when changing jobs.
These are market solutions that maintain the private health care system while supplementing it for the most vulnerable. It still allows people to go without, if they're young, healthy, and elect to do so. Those individuals should be encouraged to buy low-cost catastrophic coverage so that unforseen disasters could be handled. That's encouraged, not mandated. But, as Mr. Ferrara notes, covering the masses was never really the goal.
The only reason President Obama and the Democrats would not even consider this approach is that it does not involve the government takeover of health care, which was the real goal all along, so the wise government could run health care in the interests of progressive "social justice" (which sometimes means denying people health care).
One area this essay doesn't touch is Medicare, which is in its own entitlement death spiral as the baby boomers reach 65. However, putting Medicare on a more sound footing does not require dismantling and turning over to the government the best medical care in the world. Retiree health care can certainly be addressed separately.
Everyone's worry is about Supreme Court swing vote Anthony Kennedy. Frankly, it's a little hard for me to understand how any of the nine justices, if they are truly versed in the Constitution, could conclude any differently than Judge Vinson. I'm certain the Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer will find a way, but their minority opinion in the ultimate judging of ObamaCare will be a classic demonstration of contrived logic and avoidance of proper consideration of constitutional limits on federal power.
2/2/11 1005: And what would be a discussion of constitutionality and limits on federal power without a preposterous response from someone purported to be a constitutional scholar.
First, the higher prices and taxes aren’t Vinson’s problem if the bill itself violates the Constitution. Judges are supposed to rule on the facts and the law, not on the policy choices they like best. The prices and taxes are Congress’ issue to solve, within the limits of their authority under the Constitution. Prices might drop and taxes might go down if Congress nationalized all means of production, too, but that doesn’t make it legal or morally right.
Second, the role of the judiciary is to check the power of Congress and the executive. That’s why actual Constitutional scholars refer to the “checks and balances” of the three-branch federal system. Maybe Obama learned his Constitutional law at the same place Chuck Schumer learned civics, but applying a check to Congressional overreach isn’t “judicial activism,” it’s one of the main purposes of the federal courts. “Judicial activism” occurs when judges create laws from the bench in the absence of legislative action.
"Judges are supposed to rule on the facts and the law, not on the policy choices they like best." I hope the liberal bloc of SCOTUS remembers that.
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."
Difficult, though obviously not impossible if you're someone who thinks it's the government's responsibility to impose the society that you envision, and if trampling on the individual rights of citizens is the price, so be it. Eggs, omelettes, etc. And so, tha battle over the constitutionality of ObamaCare continues. Next up, the Appeals Court.
I haven't commented to this point on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Clinton policy toward gay soldiers instituted when President Clinton discovered that, back in 1993, full repeal of the ban on gays was fully a bridge too far. With a super-majority in the Senate (until the election of Scott Brown, which really didn't change things regarding DADT) and a large majority in the House, President Obama has been under pressure to act on this for two years. The cowardly lions in the Democratic caucus sustained huge losses in last month's election, and so now there is urgency among the rejected lame ducks to pass much of the rejected agenda that they hadn't the courage to pass earlier. DADT falls into that category.
I haven't weighed in on the policy to this point for a number of reeasons. I don't have military experience, and so my opinion on the real-world effects of repeal on the services is not as well-informed as some other commenters. I also understand that the camps are tightly drawn, and there is not much opinion to be swayed. On the other hand, when it comes to being swayed by opinions myself in this instance I'm inclined to listen to the actual military commanders who have to deal with those real-world effects among their troops.
As a result, it seems to me that the repeal of DADT that occurred in a Senate vote yesterday marks the fall of a reasonable middle. DADT enforced the principle that private behavior is private, because said private behavior cannot be allowed to alter the effectiveness of troops in the field. Was that fair to gays in the military? Not really, but the over-riding concern was and should be the functioning of units. What's the miltary really for, after all?
On the other hand, I am also sufficiently impressed with the discipline and professionalism of the American military via observation that I believe that the more open policy will eventually have no real effect. What I will be troubled by for a while is how the transition may alter that effectiveness, particularly with ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I'm also troubled by celebrations of the change by pressure groups that have less concern for military functioning than for militant demonstrations.
Let's hope I'm right, and that the American military will continue to be the most effective and honorable fighting force the world knows.
Flipping through the TV options this morning and I came upon this descriptive preview of Candy Crowley's Sunday morning talker on CNN:
9-10a State of the Union/Crowley: White House senior advisor David Axelrod; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.); Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.); former National Intelligence director Dennis Blair. (Talk)
Nice lineup. We've got the man paid to sell Obama policies, the liberal Democratic Senate second banana, a very liberal Democratic congressman from the Congressional Black Caucus, a very liberal Democratic congressman from Washington, and a man whose job was to implement Obama policies.
The country just had a ground-shifting election, one that I'm quite sure surprised and puzzled the management at CNN, and CNN can't find a single moderate, let alone conservative, whose opinion is worth airing? Are they not at all interested in understanding that shift? Perhaps CNN just doesn't want the people to hear the contrarian positions? I'm sure the questioning of these individuals will be just as challanging as if they were Sarah Palin.
Balance.
12/12/10 1000: CBS' Face The Nation is no better. The lineup?
David Axelrod, Senior White House Adviser; Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee Chair; Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
David Axelrod really is making the rounds, a sure sign there's a sale that has to be made. NBC's Meet The Press has Obama Economic Advisor Austan Goolsbee and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Still not a single Republican.
The Boston Red Sox were troubled last year by an iffy offense, one which faltered even more with the season-ending injuries to Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, both All-Stars. Mike Lowell retired. Adrian Beltre is a free agent, who rumor has it could resign with Boston, but may not. Pitching was fine, particularly the starters, what with Clay Bucholz' breakout season, Jon Lester, Josh Beckett and John Lackey fronting the rotation. In the bullpen wait flamethrower Daniel Bard and closer Jonathan Papelbon (more on him later). But the offense! Well, what do you do to correct the imbalance?
"We're thrilled to be able to make this trade," Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said Monday at a news conference introducing the slugger, adding that the team has admired the power-hitting Gonzalez since his days playing for the Texas Rangers...
Gonzalez, donning a Boston jersey without a number, said the Red Sox have always been his favorite American League team in part because of Boston icon and Hall of Famer Ted Williams, who like Gonzalez, was a left-hander and San Diego native.
"I'm very excited to be in Boston and ready to beat the Yanks," he said.
The Red Sox sent minor league right-hander Casey Kelly, first baseman Anthony Rizzo, outfielder Reymond Fuentes and a player to be named later to San Diego....
In five seasons with San Diego, Gonzalez has 161 homers and 501 RBIs. Including parts of two seasons with Texas, he has 168 homers and 525 RBIs. He hit .298 with 31 homers and 101 RBIs last season.
Epstein expects better numbers in Fenway Park with the Green Monster in left field. "We think he is going to wear the wall out," Epstein said.
Then, you bring in the top free agent outfielder, Carl Crawford, to beef up the outfield production and add speed to the lineup.
The Angels had been in pursuit of Crawford, the top position player on the free agent market, and offered him a seven-year, $108 million deal. Yankees general manager Brian Cashman had dinner with Crawford and agent Brian Peters Tuesday night. The Rangers also were involved.
But the Red Sox acted quickly and decisively and just days after trading for Adrian Gonzalez, have added a second premier player. Crawford hit .307 with 19 home runs, 90 RBIs, and 47 stolen bases last season for the Tampa Bay Rays. The 29-year-old is a four-time All-Star and this year won his first Gold Glove.
Crawford’s market was set Sunday when right fielder Jayson Werth agreed to a seven-year, $126 million deal with the Washington Nationals. The Red Sox topped that contract by an average of $2.3 million a year.
With Gonzalez reportedly having agreed to a seven-year, $154 million extension to his contract, the Red Sox have invested $296 million in a span of four days. The additions of Gonzalez and Crawford, two stars in their prime, should set the team up as contenders for years to come.
The lineup now has Crawford and Gonzalez, Youkilis and Pedroia, David Ortiz, JD Drew (though I prefer youngster Ryan Kalish) and Jacoby Ellsbury. At shortstop currently are Marco Scutaro and Jed Lowrie, both of whom have solid bats. Catcher is manned by Jason Varitek, on the downside of his career but helps run differential on the other end by managing the game exquisitely, and Jerrod Saltalamacchia, whose name simply drips off his shirt.
Crawford plays great defense, and can be expected to score over 100 runs in that lineup, with 20 HR and 50 SB while hitting around .300. Best of all, though, may be what it does to the Sox traditional rival. It makes 'em crazy. If the Yankees don't come up with Cliff Lee, and they are pulling out all the stops to do that, they may find themselves looking up at the end of next season.
Maria Hardman, 19, of Boulder, reported to the jail Wednesday to do the paperwork for a two-day work crew sentence that was supposed to be served this weekend. But when a jail detention officer told her to remove her headscarf for her mug shot, she balked.
"It's stated in the Koran in two or three places that believing women should wear the veil, except in the company of close family members," she said.
She's undoubtedly a devout and strict adherent to the teachings in the Koran. Well, maybe not so much. How, indeed, did she end up on the wrong side of law enforcement in the first place?
Hardman's offense is an awkward one for an observant Muslim, whose faith prohibits alcohol consumption, to explain: driving while ability-impaired, the lesser version of a DUI.
"I was given alcohol without my knowledge," Hardman said.
Hardman said she was drinking punch that she assumed was non-alcoholic at a party in August, and when she realized she wasn't feeling herself, she asked about the punch. When she learned that it was alcoholic, she freaked out and just wanted to leave the party, Hardman said....
Hardman's blood-alcohol content after the accident was 0.19, more than two times the legal limit.
She pleaded guilty to driving while ability-impaired and was sentenced to two days in jail, as well as community service.
Well, she may have been given alcohol without her knowledge, though the cynic in someone who knows the ins and outs of college parties from past experience, me, believes otherwise. But she apparently didn't "freak out" and try to leave the party immediately, as she admits three days later in this open letter to the community.
What people seem to forget is that this story is not about how I got to the jail. This is about what happened after I arrived at the jail, and the constitutional infringements that then occurred.
For the record, I do not dispute that I operated my 49cc motorized scooter on the day of Aug. 1. I was at a party, where I was served alcohol without my knowledge. I admit that when I discovered I was being served alcohol, I made no attempt to curb my intake.
I am 19 years old and a junior at the University of Colorado. This is far from a unique story in the college experience. For those who are in, or were at one time a college student, you will understand what I am saying.
The issue at hand revolves around my First Amendment rights as a United States citizen to freely practice my religion as I see fit.
Yes, let's not talk about how she ended up at the jail, which would be inconvenient. How terribly convenient to insist on strict adherence to Islamic law when it disturbs police routine in booking you when detained for criminal conduct. How terribly convenient to neglect Islamic law when it would curb your ability to consume alcohol at a party. And this isn't about constitutional rights. Those in custody of the law often lose rights - like the right to vote, to own a gun, and so on.
The NY Times' Paul Krugman clearly believes that growing the economy and job growth should be secondary concerns to class warfare and redistribution. That seems to be the take-away message from this column on the wrangling over January's coming tax increases. (note: he routinely employs the "let the tax cuts expire" dodge that liberal prefer)
Democrats have tried to push a compromise: let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but extend tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans, however, are having none of it. They have been filibustering Democratic attempts to separate tax cuts that mainly benefit a tiny group of wealthy Americans from those that mainly help the middle class. It’s all or nothing, they say: all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. What should Democrats do?
The answer is that they should just say no. If G.O.P. intransigence means that taxes rise at the end of this month, so be it.
So Mr. Krugman's answer, then, is this: If the price of avoiding a tax increase for the "middle class" is a tax increase for job creators and investors, then let them all eat cake. To hell with economic growth and reduced unemployment! Mr. Krugman tries to hide the significant differences in job creation like this:
...To be sure, letting taxes rise in a depressed economy would do damage — but not as much as many people seem to think.
A few months ago, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on the impact of various tax options. A two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, it estimated, would lower the unemployment rate next year by between 0.1 and 0.3 percentage points compared with what it would be if the tax cuts were allowed to expire; the effect would be about twice as large in 2012. Those are significant numbers, but not huge — certainly not enough to justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears about what will happen if the tax cuts are allowed to end on schedule.
Let's leave aside the fact that economic projections are mere fantasy, or don't you recall that the White House Budget Director predicted that the 'stimulus' would keep employment to 8% or less? Let's assume that there'll be a drop of 0.3% if the current rates are continued, the upper end of CBO projections. That translates to about 500,000 additional employed by year end 2011. The projection is that the effect would double for 2012, perhaps an additional 0.5% drop. Mr. Krugman would like you to believe that a 0.8% fall in unemployment by year end 2012, or an additional 1,500,000 jobs isn't worth it. It's far preferable for him to encourage Mr. Obama to stand up to those evil Republicans, the greedy SOB's.
I'm sorry, but I think it is is preferable to pursue policies that spur economic growth and job creation. I suspect you do also.
As an aside, in making his case Mr. Krugman also pretends that gutting social security and Medicare are necessary if the tax increases fail to go into effect. Again, speaking of gutting entitlements, I won't deal right now with ObamaCare's directive to cut $500B from Medicare and to set up a rationing board. But I will let Cato's Dan Mitchell tell him how the budget deficit can decline through spending control and economic growth.
Newsweek magazine was on such a downward spiral that recently it sold - the entire national newsmagazine - for the princely sum of $1. We can argue over what was ultimately the cause of the magazine's decline - the growth of the internet and online publishing, a pathologically leftist bent, or simple intellectual inadequacy by those charged with making the publication worth reading (the writers and editors). Perhaps it was really a combination of all three, although it should be noted that some publications seem to be thriving. Here's a story by Andrew Romano, courtesy of the headlines at Hot Air, that adds weight to the third hypothesis.
"The Professor And The Prosecutor" discusses the steady decline of Barack Obama's popularity and effectiveness and contrasts it with the steady improvement in those same characteristics for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. And the head-scratching starts right away.
...with economic growth in a near stall, unemployment approaching 10 percent, and experts warning of a double-dip recession, Obama is struggling to recover from the worst midterm rout in 65 years—while Christie, 48, is more popular than ever...
There are many reasons Christie is outpacing Obama. In the Garden State, a governor can pass his agenda without a Senate supermajority, and he doesn’t have to endure the same radioactive levels of scrutiny and vitriol as the commander in chief. But Christie’s success isn’t solely circumstantial. As his time in Trenton has proved, and as last week’s event in Hackettstown confirmed, it’s also the product of his distinctive approach to governing.
The Senate supermajority hasn't got a thing to do with it. With 60 Senators during much of the last two years Mr. Obama could pass most anything he wanted - if he could convince Democrats it was worth passing. Fortunately there were just enough thinking Democrats in the Senate to stop at least some of his most egregious excesses, like Cap & Trade. Unfortunately some tricky parliamentary maneuvers got the health care reform bill around those final road blocks. Recall that all of these things that didn't work (like the 'stimulus'), and won't work (like the health care bill), were passed with no Republican votes. Yet they were passed, Democrats own them, and they haven't worked.
The easiest way to understand why Christie has flourished and why Obama has faltered is to look at the jobs they held before entering politics. From January 2002 to December 2008, Christie served as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor; earlier, Obama spent 12 years as a constitutional-law professor at the University of Chicago. Today, Christie leads like the prosecutor he once was, identifying the crime, fingering the culprit, and methodically building a case designed to convince a jury of his peers.
In other words, Mr. Christie collects and organizes the facts, presents them coherently and as a result wins arguments. And Mr. Obama? It is said that when you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, attack the opposition. Mr. Obama has done way too much attacking of his Republican opposition for anyone to now think the facts or the law support his positions.
The first lesson of Christie’s success: keep it simple. Within minutes of lumbering into Hackettstown’s American Legion Blue Ridge Post 164, Christie has managed to sum up his agenda in less than 140 characters. “We’re spending too much, borrowing too much, and taxing too much,” he says. “We need to spend less, borrow less, and tax less.” The capacity crowd applauds. It’s an easy message to grasp. After all, who’s to say Trenton shouldn’t respond to the fiscal crisis the same way families do?
That's not the first lesson, Mr. Romano. The first lesson is that Mr. Christie accurately identified the problems. Mr. Obama has not yet accurately identified the problems. Perhaps he should listen to Mr. Christie's summation above, the simple one.
Of course, the policy reality is more complex; most economists agree, for example, that government should spend more during a recession, not less.
Let me re-write that for Mr. Romano. "I believe that government should spend more, not less, during a recession and I know of some economists who agree with that (cough - Paul Krugman - cough)." However "most" economists don't agree, or rather, no one really knows if most economists agree on this. In fact, here's one who doesn't (again courtesy Hot Air).
Now comes a real howler.
Like any good prosecutor, however, the real engine of Christie’s success has been his calculated pursuit of enemies. While Obama takes pains to acknowledge the validity of his critics’ concerns in an effort to find common ground, Christie’s strategy is to use the power of the bully pulpit to make his opponents look foolish...
With Christie, someone always deserves the blame—a conviction his aggrieved constituents seem, for now, to share...It’s hard to imagine the professorial Obama pursuing or promoting smackdowns with as much gusto as the Garden State governor—especially now, with a GOP House forcing him to moderate his agenda.
Here is where I pause for effect. ... After a bloody campaign season, and just 4 weeks after the election, that something this clueless about the statements of Mr. Obama about the Republican opposition can be written is breathtaking. Here are just a couple of examples. From the former:
On Monday, the president dismissed Republicans as "not serious." At a rally before more than 20,000 people in Madison, Wis., on Tuesday night, Obama accused the GOP of working to "hoodwink a whole bunch of folks all across the country" about his governmental philosophy. And he twice sarcastically dismissed Republicans as not "interested in facts."
And I could cite others. But back to Newsweek.
But in the weeks and months ahead, Republicans will undoubtedly indulge in a little hypocrisy—by calling for tax cuts estimated to add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, for example, then refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The president shouldn’t be afraid to isolate, ridicule, and conquer.
I shouldn't have to point this out, but Republicans are not arguing for a tax cut. They are arguing for preventing a scheduled tax increase. Mr. Romano doesn't even couch this in the familiar dodge of referring to "letting the tax cuts expire," synonymous with raising taxes, yet avoids that phrase entirely. Does anyone really think it's a good idea to raise taxes in a stagnant economy?
You might think that's enough, but there's one final bit of nonsense in the article.
But while Christie has framed the debate for maximum maneuverability—like his tough-talking but eminently practical hero, Ronald Reagan, who has been canonized by conservatives even though he raised taxes 12 times as president—Obama has received little credit for even his most impressive accomplishments.
Okay, I'll bite. Accomplishments like what? Health care? A disaster in the making - fiscally, medically, and bureaucratically. The 'stimulus'? Hardly. Foreign policy? He's alienated Britain, our staunchest, longest-serving ally. He's demonstrated ineptitude with China, South Korea, North Korea, Poland, Iran, among others. Israel & the Palestinians? Free trade with Columbia?
This is not going to enlighten and inform public debate. Mr. Romano glosses over the 'accomplishments' of the administration while attributing literally all of Mr. Christie's success to style and style alone. Perhaps, to borrow the author's construct, he should keep it simple. Mr. Christie's successes stem from identifying the problems and proposing clear solutions. Mr. Obama's lesson should be to start at step one, and to correctly identify the problem. Here's a hint: it's not the Republican opposition.
